[Arkinsaw]

I figure we can agree on this one.

[GodGunsGuts]

This must put our resident Catholic Evos in quite a quandary. Who to side with, who to side with...hmmmm????

Also see:

A gay-bashing tirade? What Pope Benedict really told the Roman Curia

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2155863/posts

[Emmett McCarthy]

You’d think science might have a clue or two about the spread of disease associated with the behaviours? Nah, no sense in letting science intrude on policy. Maybe this guy will tell us next how homosexuality can reduce global warming?

[Sherman Logan]

From an evolutionary standpoint, human males should kill all babies they can get at that aren’t their own offspring.

Works for lions, horses, bears and a good many other animals.

[Question_Assumptions]

The idea that something exists so it must have evolved for a positive reason shows that they don't understand their own theories. With sickle cell anemia, for example, the benefit comes from carrying the mutation, not from having two copies and the full blown sickle cell disorder. Similarly, even if homosexuality evolved for some benefit, the benefit may come from something we don't see and full-blown homosexuality, like full-blown sickle cell anemia, is not a benefit.

[jla]

Wouldn't surprise me to learn that Mr. Hooper is a homosexual. At the least he seems to be very amicable towards that 'lifestyle'.
And, he's out of his league if he ever wished to match wits with our erudite and sagacious Pontiff.

[ChessExpert]

Nice article.

I have become skeptical of authority. No, I’m not talking about the Pope. I am talking about the press and many academics. I reject Marx, Malthus, Freud, and global warming. I even have my doubts about Darwin. Those who rebuke me often claim to speak for an enlightened consensus, or to speak for “science.”

It seems to me that people who believe in God, people who believe in Darwin (evolution), and of course those who believe in God and Darwin, should agree that homosexuality is a perversion. Whether it is a perversion of God’s intention, or a perversion of instinct, does not matter. The purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and this purpose is not advanced by men having anal sex with men. It’s not just gross, it’s a perversion. Yet Hooper sees it otherwise. This only goes to show that evolutionary theory predicts little, can be used to “explain” anything. That is not a characteristic of true science.

I also think that naturalism should come under sustained scrutiny. The notion that my five senses are real but that my self-consciousness is an illusion is absurd. I see. The “I” who sees is just as real as the sights themselves. “I” exist. Related terms, possibly synonyms, are “self,” “mind,” and “soul.” I exist and I am a supernatural entity. I’m a supernatural entity because my self/mind/soul cannot be seen, felt, touched, smelled, or heard. I am a supernatural entity and so are the people reading my post. If “I” don’t exist to “science” then clearly it is science, so called, that is deficient.

[RobbyS]

What’s with this notion of homosexuality as hard-wired? No one knows the general “cause” of it, whether it is psychological or physical in origin. Jung thought it originated in a confusion of sexual roles and so was more prevalent in an urban setting.

[hail to the chief]

The way I read this, the Pope used science to attack homosexuality, and the New Scientist criticized him for using science to settle moral matters. This article criticizes the New Scientist for using science to settle moral matters. What is your actual position on the use of science in the realm of morality?

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

Let’s not get carried away here—this isn’t “science” or “New Scientist” disagreeing with the Pope. This is just the online news editor at New Scientist, whose job probably requires him to generate a certain number of blog posts a week. The story here is “some guy who works at New Scientist disagrees with the Pope.” Big deal.

[GodGunsGuts]

Related article.